June 08, 2009

Just a Glimpse of an Ankle, and I React Like It's 1805

by Eric Martin

A small step in the right direction in terms of breaking the stifling grip of conservative religious orthodoxy in Saudi Arabia:

For the first time in three decades, Saudis in the nation's capital did something that most Westerners take for granted — they went to the movies. But it wasn't exactly date night. No women were allowed.

Saturday's screening of the Saudi film, "Menahi," brought a taste of the moviegoing experience to Riyadh more than 30 years after the government began shutting down theaters — a move driven by religious conservatives who view cultural activities such as movie screenings and concerts with concern because they could lead to mixing of the sexes and violate Islamic values.

Men and children, including girls up to 10, were allowed to attend Saturday's show at a government-run cultural center. Young male organizers of the event manned a checkpoint on the road leading to the gated center so no women could reach the theater.

And in a sign of the challenges that face every small step toward reform, a group of conservative men gathered outside the entrance to the center to try to discourage the moviegoers from going in. People largely ignored them, savoring the chance to munch popcorn and enjoy the cinema.

"It was just beautiful to see people look so animated and happy," said Misfir al-Sibai, a 21-year-old Saudi businessman who attended the screening. "That was the best part of the evening."

Despite the exclusion of half of Riyadh's population, the decision to show the film, produced by a company owned by royal tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, was a daring step. It followed a trend in opening up the kingdom, culturally and in other ways, that began when King Abdullah came to power in 2005.

That has angered conservatives, who have issued edicts against such cultural events. One of them, Youssef al-Ahmed, has even accused Alwaleed and another Saudi businessman of being as dangerous as drug dealers because the TV channels they own broadcast movies.

The state of affairs in Saudi Arabia (not to mention its penchant for exporting, far and wide, one of the more radical, intolerant Islamic doctrines) is a stark reminder of how ridiculous it is to describe Saudi Arabia's regime as a "moderate," while tagging Iran's as extremist. Not quite.

"...how ridiculous it is to describe Saudi Arabia's regime as a 'moderate,' while tagging Iran's as extremist."

Without particularly desiring to start, at the moment, a discussion of the respective merits and demerits of either regime in this regard as present, I'd suggest that there's are useful distinctions between cultural moderation/extremism, and political moderation/extremism, the latter also subdivisible to some extent between domestic and as regards foreign policy.

Ok, to start some discussion in contradiction to myself, I'd say that Wahabism crosses lines between cultural and political, and obviously is at play in both Saudi domestic and foreign policy, and thus Wahabism, for instance, isn't easily divisible between "cultural" and "political."

But I'd still suggest that the distinctions are useful in some circumstances.

But I'd still suggest that the distinctions are useful in some circumstances.

What's fascinating about Saudi Arabia is that it seems that extreme conservatism in domestic policy is used to co-opt conservatives, so they don't start pushing extreme conservatism in foreign policy. And oil money co-opts everyone else.

The elites of both countries have an abominable taste. It's just that the Saudis can afford more of it. Imagine how NK would look, if Dear Leader had all that money to spend on 'art' (urrgh!).
The Saudis import slaves, NK uses its own population.
---
Old joke: What would happen if [enter name of communist country] were in the Sahara desert? Nothing for ten years. Then they would begin to run short on sand.

Why 1805? The regency era was by no means as sexually repressive as the Victorian era.

Indeed, many of us nowadays would probably blush at some of the goings on in Regency times. And the (British) Victorian era itself was more ambiguous than its straightforward caricature, at least until the late Victorian. At the risk of sounding like a broken mp3, I'll recommend Sweet's Inventing the Victorians, as I always do in comment threads when Victorian mores come up. In short, Who Relies on Virginia Woolf?

Oh, and Saudi Arabia? Well, they're officially less belligerent towards the world than NK, and somewhat less nuclear. These are net pluses in realist international affairs. Sure, it would be nice if they were as enlightened as Kuwait, but such things take time and very subtle pressure. Also, they have most of the oil, so who cares what we think?

What really fascinates me is the apparent cause of the extreme conservatism that you mention.

When I was in Riyadh a few years ago, someone pointed out to me that, back in the 1950s, the first supermarket opened in Saudi Arabia. It was covered in a magazine article at the time, complete will picture . . . of a Saudi woman with shopping cart. And the dress that she was wearing would have been unremarkable on an American woman of the same era. The whole total cover-up thing apparently started when the Mullahs took over in Iran. The Saudi Imams apparently decided that, as (in their own eyes) the center of Islam, they could not allow anyone to be "more pure" than they were.

It is also noteworthy that the young men who have been educated in the West (which is a fairly large number of them) seemed to have a really cynical view of the whole extreme religion approach of their elders. Not that they are not devout; just generally not fanatical about it. It will take decades before the older generation finally dies off. But at that point, it won't be surprising if there are some rather dramatic changes.

The whole total cover-up thing apparently started when the Mullahs took over in Iran. The Saudi Imams apparently decided that, as (in their own eyes) the center of Islam, they could not allow anyone to be "more pure" than they were.

Which is interesting, given the rather light rules on women's attire in Iran. The chador isn't mandatory, and the khimar doesn't have to be a particularly extensive scarf. So naturally the only alternative is an abaya. Too bad Sunni Islam seems to have a problem with middle ground, at least when it comes to women. (Yeah, what a surprise.)

As much as I love film, a government allowing film screenings is not in itself necessarily a sign of liberalization or reform. Film can be used highly effectively for nefarious propaganda purposes or simply to distract and sedate the population, as film-buff Goebbels has shown and leaders like Kim Yong-il have taken their love of film to extraordinary extremes.

My family lived in Riyadh in the early eighties. Dad was a flight instructor for Lockheed. Mom and sis were giving it their best but were western through and through so came came back to the states after a few aggravating years. My sister explained it as feeling like a another species and one of a lower order.